How many judgments cite Prashant Joshi v. ITO?

45 judgments on BharatTax cite Prashant Joshi v. ITO (128 ITR 326), spanning 2018 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Prashant Joshi v. ITO come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 153C, Section 144, Section 143(3), Section 115BBE, Section 153A, Section 153D.

Prashant Joshi v. ITO

128 ITR 326High Court1981#2549 most cited

What is Prashant Joshi v. ITO authority for?

Reasons recorded for initiating an assessment or other statutory action cannot be supplemented by subsequent explanations or affidavits; only the reasons existing at the time of recording are valid and can be considered.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Prashant Joshi v. ITO · 128 ITR 326 · 1 Taxmann.com 90 · reasons cannot be supplemented · post-facto justification · subsequent explanations · original satisfaction note · assessment procedure · Section 153A · Section 153C · validity of reasons

Also reported as

1 Taxmann.com 90

Sections most often in play

Section 153C Section 144 Section 143(3)Section 115BBE Section 153A Section 153D Section 292C Section 132

Issues it is cited on

section 158bd income tax settlement commission section 144a section 269ss specified authority block period section 292c section 158b section 158 section 153a(1)section 149 non-application of mind

Judgments citing Prashant Joshi v. ITO

DCIT, CC-2, Jaipur vs. Shri Vimal Chand Surana(HUF), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 62/JPR/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) &For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 139Section 143Section 147Section 150(2)Section 153CSection 2Section 250Section 69

…ich conclusions are based and the actual conclusion of the Assessing officer in formation of his belief that any income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. 4) The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of East Coast Commercial Co. Ltd. V. ITO [1981] 128 ITR 326 (Cal.) observed that “The recording of reasons in our opinion is not an idle formality but is a mandatory requirement of the statute casting a duty and obligation on the ITO to record his reasons for issuing a notice for reopening an assessment and the CBDT or the Commissioner, as the case may be, being satisfied that it is a fit case for issue…

D.C.I.T., Circle-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S G.K.Ispat Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross objection of the different assessees are also dismissed

ITA 2408/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar] "ी संजय गग" "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य के सम"

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…"reason to believe" and such reason is material and relevant to form a belief that there is an escaped assessment, no action under section 147 of the Act can be taken. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of East Coast Commercial Co. Ltd. V. ITO [1981] 128 ITR 326 (Cal.) observed that The recording of reasons in our opinion is not an idle formality but is a mandatory requirement of the statute casting a duty and obligation on the ITO to record his reasons for issuing a notice for 'reopening an assessment and the CBDT or the Commissioner, as the case may be, being satisfied that it is a fit case for issue o…

DCIT, Circle - 6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Gaurav Rose Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross objection of the different assessees are also dismissed

ITA 2407/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar] "ी संजय गग" "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य के सम"

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Shri Tyrone Patrick Lemos, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-2(1)(2), Vadodara

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2414/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Nov 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasadआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2414/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri Ketan H. Shah, A.R

Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

…der s. 148(2) of the Act. This view finds support from plethora of decision including the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Bai v. CIT (1999) 236 ITR 696 (SC); Hindustan Lever Ltd. (2004) 268 ITR 332 (Bom.), East Coast Commercial Co. Ltd. v. ITO (1981) 128 ITR 326 (Cal.). Hence, the additions made by the AO towards deemed income under s.2(22)(e) of the Act, being extraneous to reasons recorded, requires to be struck down on this score itself. 9. Adverting further, there is yet another reason to impugn the action of AO. It is an admitted position that the assessment proceedings in the instant case came int…

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Vimal Chand Surana HUF, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 437/JPR/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 May 2018AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 131Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 292C

…which conclusions are based and the actual conclusion of the Assessing officer in formation of his belief that any income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. 4. The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of East Coast Commercial Co. Ltd. V. ITO [1981] 128 ITR 326 (Cal.) observed that “The recording of reasons in our opinion is not an idle formality but is a mandatory requirement of the statute casting a duty and obligation on the ITO to record his reasons for issuing a notice for reopening an assessment and the CBDT or the Commissioner, as the case may ITA 437/JP/2017_ 10 DCIT Vs. Vimal Chand Surana (HUF)…